Labeling Theory: An Ironic Twist of Social Interactionism and Conflict Theory, Slides of Criminology

Download Labeling Theory: An Ironic Twist of Social Interactionism and Conflict Theory and more Slides Criminology in PDF only on Docsity!

Labeling Theory

“Classic” Labeling Reintegrative Shaming Defiance Theory

The Social Context of Labeling

Many “early writings” Lemert in 1950s Tannenbaum in 1938 Emerged in the 1960s as a force Social context of the 1960s “Fit” with the theory Labeling theory = “ironic twist”

The Classic Labeling Process

Primary Deviance

• Most engage in this
• Typically sporadic, not serious Formal Sanctions
  • Degradation ceremony
  • Stigmatizing Change in Self-Concept
    • looking glass self
    • hard to resist formal label Secondary Deviance
• Caused by new self-image as criminal or deviant

Criticisms of Labeling

1. Typically history of antisocial behavior prior to formal labeling Society doesn’t “identify, tag, and sanction individuals as deviant in a vacuum.”
2. Controlling initial levels of deviance, formal sanctions have little (no?) effect.
3. No “negotiation,” obsession with “formal” sanctions...

John Braithwaite

Austrailian Criminologist Crime, Shame, and Reintegration Pretty complex theory (Not parsimonious) BUT, Central concepts are not that complex Reintegrative Shaming vs. Stigmatization Interdependency Communitarianism

What is “shaming?”

 Behaviors (from others) that induce guilt, shame snide comment, verbal confrontations stocks/pillory, the “scarlet letter” Naval tradition of “captains mask” In Western society, shaming has become uncoupled from formal punishment Offenders privately sent away to warehouses by corrections or court “officials”

Types of “Shaming”

Reintegrative Love the sinner, hate the sin Spank the child, but tell them that you still love them Stigmatizing no effort made to reconcile the offender with the community offender as outcast, “criminal” as master status degradation ceremonies not followed by ceremonies to “decertify” deviance

Examples of Shaming

Stigmatizing United States Court, prison, etc. (remove and shun from community) Reintegrative Japan Ceremonies to shame and welcome back

Evidence for Reintegrative Shaming?

Japan vs. U.S. crime rates Since WWII, Japan U.S.(others) Why? High Interdependency and Communitarianism Reintegrative Shaming emphasized Community has duty to shame and welcome back transgressors

Implications of Braithwaite?

Restorative Justice Emphasis on “repairing harm”  Punishment alone is not effective in changing behavior and is disruptive to community harmony and good relationships  Restitution as a means of restoring both parties; goal of reconciliation and restoration Community involvement  Crime control the domain of the community  Community as facilitator in restorative process  Crime has social dimensions of responsibility  Victims are central to the process of resolving a crime

What causes defiance?

 Sanctions are defined as “unfair” Sanctioning agent behaves with disrespect for the offender or his/her group The sanction is actually unfair (discriminatory, excessive, undeserved) – COPS  Offender is poorly bonded to sanctioning agent or community Borrowed from social bond theory  Hostile reaction  the labeling theory irony again (getting tough produces opposite reaction)